SECOND DIVISION
CONCERNED
CITIZENS
OF SAN FRANCISCO, SURIGAO
DEL NORTE,
Petitioners,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1507
January 20, 2004
-versus-
HON. JUDGE JUANILLO
M. PULLOS, CLERK OF COURT
MANUEL D. GEALAN,CLERK OF COURT II
ESMERALDA
L. ANGOB, STENOGRAPHERS IROSARIO B. GASULAS
AND ALMEA B. PAYUSAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT,SAN FRANCISCO,
MALIMONO,
SURIGAO DEL
NORTE,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
,
Before us is the letter
complaint[1]
filed by the Concerned Citizens of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte,
accusing
Juanillo M. Pullos, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court
(MCTC) of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte; Manuel D. Gealan, Clerk of
Court II; Esmeralda L. Angob, Clerk II; Rosario B. Gasulas and Almea B.
Payusan, both Stenographers I, for allegedly overcharging complainants
when the latter secured court clearances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their joint affidavit,[2]
complainants Maria Lina O. Nimez, Mercy V. Nimez, Eleuterio M. Cordonas
and Manuel Elandag allege: At around 10:30 a.m. of January 31, 2000,
they
were at the MCTC of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte, to secure court
clearances
for their loan purposes. Respondent court employees Angob, Gasulas and
Payusan charged them P50.00 each per clearance but were issued two
official
receipts each in the amount of P8.00 court clearance JDF and P2.00
court
clearance General Fund or for a total amount of only P10.00. Noting the
discrepancy, complainants asked for clarification and they were told
that
the amount they paid allegedly covered the payment of three documentary
stamps attached to each court clearance which was no longer indicated
in
the official receipts as it was in accordance with an office
memorandum;
still dissatisfied, complainants inquired from a BIR collection agent
the
cost of one documentary stamp and were told that each cost P5.00 thus
the
three documentary stamps attached to each court clearance amounted only
to P15.00. When complainants confronted the respondents about the
excessive
collection fees, respondent Clerk of Court Manuel D. Gealan intervened
and reasoned out that the fees were already fixed and approved by
respondent
Judge Juanillo M. Pullos.cralaw:red
In her affidavit,[3]
complainant Filipina J. Platil aver: When she went to the MCTC on
January
31, 2000 to secure a court clearance, she was also asked to pay P50.00
for the same. Around 12 o’clock noon of the same day, complainants
Maria
Lina and Mercy Nimez went to her store complaining about the excessive
fees charged by respondents for their clearances. Maria Lina told her
that
the three documentary stamps cost only P15.00, thus the charge of
P50.00
for the clearance was not justified. After the Nimezes left, she looked
at her clearance and found no documentary stamps attached thereto
despite
her payment of P50.00.cralaw:red
In their joint affidavit,[4]
complainants Caridad R. Seguis and Teresita L. Mata state: They went to
MCTC on February 1, 2000 to secure court clearances when they saw
Gregorio
Embodo who told them that he was charged P50.00 for his clearance. When
they were asked to pay P50.00 for each clearance, they only paid the
amounts
reflected in the two receipts issued to them for a total amount of only
P10.00.cralaw:red
Respondent Judge Pullos
filed his Comment[5]
contending that he did not commit any violation of Republic Act No.
3019.
He claims that he issued Office Memorandum No. 2-99[6]
on November 8, 1999 for the reason that applicants for court clearance
refused to pay the amounts of P8.00 and P2.00 for the JDF and the
General
Fund claiming that the same should be free of charge, and they suspect
that said amounts would only be pocketed by the court employees. Thus,
he instructed his Clerk of Court that all payments for fees should be
receipted
and all applications for court clearance must be filed personally by
the
applicant and not by representatives. He also verbally instructed his
court
employees not to accept offers for merienda nor join get-together
parties
especially if sponsored by those who have transactions with their
office
which instructions were perceived by dirty minded individuals as lack
of
"pakikisama". Respondent Judge further contends that some of herein
complainants
were close relative, friends and neighbors of the losing defendants in
Civil Case No. 136, which he had decided and is now under execution;
that
because of his impartial administration of justice, he and his
personnel
will continue to acquire enemies. Respondent Judge Pullos also filed
his
counter-affidavit[7]
reiterating his arguments in his comment and in addition states that
there
was no overcharging or overpricing of whatever fees being collected as
all collections/payments made to the court were duly receipted; that he
did not intervene nor participate in the issuance of court clearance,
much
less, in the collection of fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment,[8]
respondent Clerk of Court Gealan averred that complainants’ accusation
that he intervened and reasoned out that the fees were already fixed
and
were approved by Judge Pullos was a pure misconstruction of motives;
that
there was no need for the staff to consult him or the Presiding Judge
for
every receipt issued since Office Memorandum No. 2-99 dated 08 November
1999 is self-explanatory; that he signs the clearance if accompanied by
original receipt, documentary stamp, signed and thumbmarked by the
applicant;
that court stenographer Dapusala was the one who received the fees
collected
since she was the one bonded by this Court; that he observed that
Dapusala
had not received more than what was reflected on the official receipts
issued. He also filed his counter-affidavit[9]
where he stated that the allegations that respondents committed corrupt
practices by collecting excessive amount of fees is a big lie and quite
impossible because all collections were duly receipted since Judge
Pullos
is very strict; that it is not their obligation to affix documentary
stamps
but required applicants to affix the same; that complainant Filipina
Platil
was a former stenographer of the court who resigned after she was
recommended
for dismissal by former Judge Adriano D. Barbero for inefficiency; that
the instant administrative case could be a part of her vengeance to get
even with the court employees; that Judge Pullos has nothing to do with
the issuance of court clearances, more so with the collection of fees.cralaw:red
In her counter-affidavit,[10]
respondent Angob alleges that as Clerk II, her work involved checking
and
verifying of entries in the docket book; that on January 31, 2000, she
saw complainants Elandag, Gordonas, Mata and Sequis in the courtroom
applying
for court clearances and she asked them to wait while she verified the
criminal docket book; that they got angry and demanded that they be
issued
a clearance as they were not criminals; that she refused the
application
for clearance filed by Maria Lina Nimez in behalf of her husband,
Vicente
Nimez, Jr. since applications should be filed personally by the
applicant;
that the allegations against her were purely fabricated and intended to
malign her reputation as a public servant.cralaw:red
In their joint counter-affidavit,[11]
respondents Gasulas and Payusan allege that during their ten years and
three years, respectively, in the judiciary, as stenographers, they
have
rendered good and honest service; that on January 31, 2000, they
assisted
in the preparation and issuance of court clearances upon the
instruction
of respondent Clerk of Court; that they deny having received from each
applicant the amount of P50.00 but instead claim that they only
received
the amount of P8.00 for JDF and P2.00 for the General Fund as reflected
in the receipts issued to them by Dapusala; that when they required
complainants
to produce documentary stamps since the BIR of San Francisco (Anao-on),
Surigao del Norte, had no more documentary stamps, each complainant
tried
to give them P20.00 for them to buy stamps but because of their refusal
to accept the money, complainants got angry and told them that they
(respondents)
were indifferent and arrogant; that respondent Clerk of Court had no
hand
in the collection of fees but merely a signatory of clearances and
other
documents requested; that Judge Pullos was very strict, considered by
some
people of San Francisco as indifferent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All respondents declare
that they are contented with their salaries, allowances and benefits
received
from the Court and would not barter the same with a few pesos that
could
malign their reputation and standing.cralaw:red
In our Resolution dated
August 28, 2000, the case was referred to Executive Judge Floripinas C.
Buyser of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Surigao City, for
investigation,
report and recommendation. A hearing was conducted by the investigating
judge where both sides were heard.cralaw:red
The investigating judge
submitted his report and recommendation dated June 28, 2002 where he
found
all respondents, except for Judge Pullos, to have committed an act
grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and recommended the
imposition
of the penalty of suspension for a period of six months and one day,
they
being first offenders. He recommended the dismissal of the complaint
against
Judge Pullos for lack of evidence.cralaw:red
In the Resolution dated
March 24, 2003, the case was referred to the Court Administrator for
evaluation,
report and recommendation. In his Report dated July 17, 2003, the Court
Administrator agreed in toto with the findings and recommendations of
the
investigating judge but recommended that the guilty respondents be
suspended
for one year for having committed an act of dishonesty with warning
that
a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
with
more severely.cralaw:red
The case against respondent
Judge Pullos should be dismissed for lack of evidence. No evidence was
presented to show the respondent judge’s culpability. In fact, all the
complainants declared that respondent judge was not at the courtroom
when
they applied for their court clearances. The respondent judge did not
commit
any act that would point to his culpability except that as complainants
had stated, he was merely included in the complaint because he was the
chief of the court and because respondents were referring to his office
memorandum as the basis for such overcharging. A reading of the said
memorandum,
however, only showed the requirements for securing clearance and other
documents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the Court
Administrator and the investigating judge that all the other
respondents
are guilty of dishonesty in overcharging complainants for court
clearance
fees.cralaw:red
We have gone over the
records of the case and found no cogent reason to disturb the factual
findings
of the investigating judge and the Court Administrator that the other
respondents
were positively identified by the complainants as the persons who
charged
the latter the amount of P50.00 or P30.00 each for court clearance but
issued official receipts for a total amount of P10.00 only.cralaw:red
As correctly found by
the investigating judge:
In the instant administrative
case, substantial evidence exists linking respondents Rosario Gasulas,
Almea Payusan, Esmeralda Angob and Manuel Gealan directly to the
illegal
exaction and corruption charged.cralaw:red
Complainant Filipina
Platil positively identified respondent Rosario Gasulas as the very
person
from whom she secured a court clearance on 28 January 2000 (Exhibit
"G"),
for which Platil, upon Gasulas’ demand, paid P50.00, but the latter
gave
the former two receipts in the total sum of only P10.00, broken down as
follows: Clearance Gen. Fund, P2.00 (Exhibit "E"); and Clearance JDF,
P8.00
(Exhibit "F").chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Teresita
Mata also positively identified respondent Rosario Gasulas as the
person
from whom she procured a court clearance on 1 February 2000. Gasulas
charged
Mata P30.00 which amount the latter paid to the former. Gasulas gave
Mata
two official receipts for the total amount of only P10.00 (Exhibits "C"
and "D").cralaw:red
In regard to respondent
Almea Payusan, complainant Filipina Platil positively declared that
when
she secured a court clearance on 31 January 2000, Payusan made her pay
P50.00, but issued two official receipts for the total amount of only
P10.00
(Exhibits "H" and "I"). Complainant Caridad Seguis likewise testified
that
respondent Almea Payusan charged her P30.00 for the court clearance
Seguis
secured on 1 February 2000, but because Payusan issued two official
receipts
for the total amount of only P10.00, Seguis paid only P10.00 and not
the
P30.00 charged by said respondent.cralaw:red
Relative to respondent
Esmeralda Angob, complainant Maria Lina Nimez pointed at her as the one
from whom the latter secured a court clearance on 31 January 2000, for
which Nimez paid P35.00 but was issued official receipts for the total
amount of only P10.00 (Exhibits "L" and "M"). Nimez further declared
that
Angob told her that "there is a secret receipt for the payment of the
paper
being used".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fact, from the testimony
of complainant Eleuterio Gordonas, it appears that respondents Rosario
Gasulas, Esmeralda Angob and Manuel Gealan conspired in overcharging
Gordonas
for the court clearance he secured on 31 January 2000. Gordonas
declared
that, at that time, Angob told him to pay P50.00 for the clearance,
which
demand Gealan affirmed by saying that the same is in consonance with
the
new memorandum issued by respondent Judge Juanillo M. Pullos. Hence,
Gordonas
paid P50.00 to Gasulas and the latter gave him two official receipts
for
the sums of only P8.00 and P2.00, respectively (Exhibits "J" and "K").cralaw:red
Respondents Rosario
Gasulas, Esmeralda Angob and Almea Payusan admitted having issued
official
receipts for payment of court clearance fees (Exhibits "5", "6",
"7","8",
"10", "11", and "12", respectively), but denied having personally
received
the money paid, as according to them they are not authorized to do so,
they being not bonded. They claimed that the money paid for the court
clearances
was actually received by Court Stenographer Minda Dapusala who was the
duly designated Collection Officer and the one who is bonded. Despite
the
fact that this assertion of the aforenamed respondents is corroborated
by Minda Dapusala herself, the undersigned Investigating Judge is not
convinced.
First, because the denial by the said respondents that they received
the
money paid for such court clearances, cannot prevail over the positive
declaration by the complainants that the money paid by them were in
fact
received by the same respondents (see: People vs. Geraban, G.R. No.
137048,
24 May 2001); and, second, because the veracity of the testimony of
Minda
Dapusala that she is duly designated Collection Officer of the MCTC of
Malimono-San Francisco, Surigao del Norte is doubtful, she having not
declared
who particularly designated her to perform that additional duty.
Despite
the testimony of respondent Manuel Gealan that "I requested the Supreme
Court to let Daposala (sic) as the one to collect the fees." (t.s.n. 7
January 2002, p. 6), Dapusala has not presented any Supreme Court order
designating her as Collection Officer of the aforesaid Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court. According to Section 8, Rule 141, as amended by Supreme
Court
Administrative Circular No. 11-94, the person authorized to collect
fees
in the Municipal Trial Court is the Clerk of Court, who, in the instant
case, is respondent Manuel Gealan. He is the accountable officer and,
thus,
required to be bonded (Sec. 3, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, as
amended).
In fact, complainants Teresita Mata, Filipina Platil and Caridad Seguis
testified on rebuttal that it was not Minda Dapusala who received their
payment for the court clearance, as she was not there at that time, for
which reason Dapusala is not included as one of the respondents in this
administrative case. Said complainants’ respective payments were
received
by respondents Payusan and Gasulas.cralaw:red
Notably, complainants
Gordonas and Elandag who were outraged by the excessive clearance fees
collected on them on January 31, 2000, immediately thereafter went to
the
office of the Sangguniang Bayan located beside the MCTC and approached
Kagawad Proceso Bernal and complained about the fees collected in the
amount
of P50.00 but were covered by official receipts in the amount of P10.00.[12]
Kagawad Bernal then referred the matter to their Vice Mayor.[13]
The following day, Vice Mayor Japson together with Romeo Tomate of the
DILG and all Sangguniang Bayan members were there at the courtroom,
thus,
complainant Mata who went to MCTC to secure her court clearance on that
day and was asked to pay P30.00 was secretly called by respondent
Gasulas
to return her P20.00.[14]
Respondents Payusan,
Gasulas and Angob deny that they received money from complainants since
only Minda Dapusala, a bonded officer, was the one allowed to receive
payment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not persuaded.
The testimony of Dapusala that she was the one who received the
payments
of complainant cannot outweigh the positive declarations of
complainants
that they gave their payments to the respondents who issued the
receipts
to them. Respondents’ denial are at most lame and cannot prevail over
the
positive assertions of the complaining witnesses. In fact, on rebuttal,
complainants Mata, Platil and Seguis testified that Dapusala was not in
the courtroom when they secured their respective clearances thus she
was
not included in the herein charges. Moreover, if Dapusala was really
the
one who received the payments, she should have affixed her signature on
the official receipts. However, as admitted by respondent Gasulas, her
signature appeared in the receipts issued to complainants Elandag,
Gordonas,
Platil, Vicente Nimez and Mercy Nimez[15]
while respondent Payusan admitted having signed the official receipts
issued
to Mata and Seguis.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents claim that
the complainants had ill-motives in filing the administrative case
because
(a) respondents refused complainant’s request for them to buy the
documentary
stamps which should be affixed in the clearance; (b) Lina Nimez was mad
as respondents refused her filing of application in behalf of her
absent
husband; (c) complainants wanted that their clearances be released
immediately;
(d) Platil has a grudge against respondents since she thought that they
were responsible for her removal from the court as stenographer.cralaw:red
The reasons cited are
so flimsy. It bears stress that complainants are mere ordinary citizens
and would not benefit at all from hurling serious accusations against
respondents
who are court employees. The alleged refusal of respondents to accede
to
complainants’ request to buy documentary stamp is too petty to move
them
to file this administrative case. Respondent Gasulas admitted that she
allowed Lina Nimez to pay for in behalf of her absent husband Vicente
who
arrived later to affix his signature and thumb mark to the court
clearance.[17]
Clearly, there was no reason for Nimez to be so angry with respondent
Gasulas
that would impel her to file an administrative complaint against
Gasulas.cralaw:red
There is likewise no
merit to respondent Payusan’s claim that complainants were angered by
the
fact that they wanted that their clearances be released immediately.
Respondent
Payusan herself testified on cross-examination that complainants Platil
and Mata, who filed their applications on the last day of filing, were
issued their clearances on the same day they filed the same.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The removal of complainant
Platil from office in 1989 could not have been the reason for filing
the
administrative case since she categorically declared that only
respondent
Gealan was employed with the court at the time that she was severed
from
office.[19]
She even stressed in rebuttal that she was not angry with Judge Barbero
who recommended her dismissal nor with respondent Gealan who asked her
to sign her resignation papers because she knew that Gealan was only
following
the judge’s instruction.[20]
Thus, she had no reason to begrudge the other respondents who had
nothing
to do at all with her resignation.cralaw:red
Respondent Angob claims
that complainant Seguis was motivated by a personal grudge against her
because her daughter had slapped Seguis’ daughter. Angob testified that
the alleged slapping incident happened two or three years ago and she
learned
about it only from relatives after Seguis had filed the
affidavit-complaint;[21]
that no criminal case was brought against her daughter nor was the
incident
brought before the barangay captain.[22]
Thus, it is quite unbelievable that such slapping incident which had
nothing
to do with the charge of overcharging of fees would be the reason of
Seguis
for filing an administrative complaint against respondent Angob. In
fact,
Seguis did not point to respondent Angob as the one who overcharged her
but to respondent Payusan who even testified that she knew the
complainants
personally and had no quarrel with them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Angob also
tried to discredit complainant Mata by alleging that the latter was a
trouble
maker because she led the petition to oust their parish priest.
However,
on rebuttal, Mata stated that the parish priest left the parish on his
own volition.[23]
Other than this single incident which was not even proven and which
respondent
Angob’s knowledge of the same came only from others,[24]
respondent could not offer a more valid reason why Mata would accuse
her
of overcharging clearance fees.cralaw:red
There being nothing
on the record to show that the complaints-witnesses were actuated by
any
improper motive, their testimonies shall be entitled to full faith and
credit.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents would like
to impress upon us that they would not commit the act of overcharging
since
they are contented with the remuneration and benefits they received
from
the Court. We are not convinced. We agree with the investigating Judge
when he said that "one’s being well-off in life is not a guaranty that
he or she will not commit corruption in public office. History is
fraught
with public officials who were known to be moneyed but amassed more
wealth
by committing corruption in public office".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and again, we have
said that we condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or
omission
on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which
would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or
even
just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[26]
Since the administration of justice is a sacred task, persons who are
involved
in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity
and uprightness. Having committed acts of dishonesty, respondents
Gealan,
Angob, Gasulas and Payusan failed to measure up to these standards.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, as recommended
by the Court Administrator, respondents Manuel D. Gealan, Esmeralda L.
Angob, Rosario B. Gasulas and Almea B. Payusan, are found to have
committed
acts of dishonesty. They are suspended for one (1) year without pay,
with
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
shall
be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
The case against Judge
Juanillo M. Pullos is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 16.
[2]
Id. at pp. 18-19.
[3]
Id. at p. 20.
[4]
Id. at p. 21.
[5]
Id. at pp. 32-33.
[6]
Id. at p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court
Clearance/s and documentation shall be issued personally to the person
applying for the same but not through proxy or representative, whether
the purpose is for employment, loan, business licenses and etc. To
avoid
problems with the BIR, require the applicant/s to affix the correct
amount
of documentary stamps, if it is required by law/rule/regulation.
Henceforth,
collect the correct amount for Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and
General
Fund. Official Receipts/s should be issued for the amount collected and
remit the same to the Supreme Court.
To
avoid issuing documentation/clearance/s to a wrong party, ascertain the
identity of the applicant (clearances) and in case of doubt, proper
referral
should be had with the Criminal Docket Book of the Court. Whenever
convenient,
require the party- applicant to produce his identification card or ID
picture,
let him affix his signature and /or thumb mark.
Regardless
of color, creed, financial and political status of applicants, cause
the
immediate processing of their application/s and release the same at the
earliest dispatch.
For
compliance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at pp. 43-44.
[8]
Id. at pp. 38-39.
[9]
Id. at. pp. 40-41.
[10]
Id. at pp. 52-53.
[11]
Id. at pp. 54-55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, March 12, 2001, p. 5.
[13]
TSN, May 22, 2001, p. 8.
[14]
TSN, November 6, 2000, p. 23.
[15]
TSN, November 5, 2001, pp. 5- 12.
[16]
Id. at pp. 20-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, November 5, 2001, p. 9.
[18]
TSN, November 5, 2001, p.24-25.
[19]
TSN, February 20, 2001, p. 8.
[20]
TSN, February 19, 2002, 8.
[21]
TSN, November 26, 2001, pp. 10-11.
[22]
Id., at p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, February 19, 2002, p. 4.
[24]
TSN, November 26, 2001, p.13.
[25]
People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA 31.
[26]
Bandong vs. Ching, 261 SCRA 10. |